"Teach yourself to not judge people for being human."
"Be a more charitable, generous, understanding person."
Anyone making such blatantly judgemental and egotistical comments to a complete stranger has absolutely no idea what is frustrating to people. And is not being anything like a charitable or understanding person.
Thank you for illustrating perfectly, the mindset that gets you worst possible results from AI. I'm, in your opinion, wrong and you chose to react with indignant fury. What kind of result will that get you?
This makes the remarkable claim that the ontology document is correct no matter what the actual data says! And I suspect legal would have something to say about the ontology defining what a contract is.
It badly needs grounding in some real examples. It reads like pure navel gazing academia, or expensive, gold plated consultancy.
I have never encountered a company that talks about their ontology.
You need the warehouse.
You can benefit from a semantic layer. Optional, but loads of examples in the wild.
Definitions in a semantic layer are absolutely an ontology of sorts. You should avoid working with people who let conceptual purity get in the way of practical results. Concepts and metaphors can guide your work and help with communication; pedantry drags it to a halt.
Treating your ontology as not just a useful concept but an actual product you spend time writing and maintaining? Outside of it being a word you could reasonably apply to tools such as data catalogs, my anecdata is that I have never heard of it in practice.
Ontologies have become much more mainstream over the past year or so. Case in point: Microsoft's new Fabric IQ product, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/fabric/iq/overview. I don't know how good this product is, but there's a LOT of interest in the space.
That's your reaction to a page about photography that has photos of a model, and the photos DON'T feature her breasts? I mean sure, she has them. Many women do!
Because the police or the prosecutor or whatever can ask for whatever they want, but it's up to the judge to refuse their stupid claims. Though the others should get some blame too.
That’s a profoundly incorrect misunderstanding of the Citizens United decision, which was to remove restrictions on political spending by corporations.
In other words, by your distinction, the decision was about stacks of cash, not movies.
A case regarding a movie was indeed brought to the court. The court decided to make a far more expansive decision. The movie became a footnote, and has effectively no meaningful relationship to the court’s final decision or its impact.
As for getting lost in a discussion about the difference between an ad and a movie, that’s really going down a rabbit hole of deliberately missing the point completely. Some word play is just too divorced from reality to engage with. There are many very short movies, and any rational person would be able to distinguish them from ads to a high degree of accuracy.
It's a wireframing tool akin to figma. You create the design for your website/app there, then hand it over to a programmer who implementd it in html/react/flutter/wpf/etc
This is always the piece that disappoints me when seeing this and other similar tools.
Surely it is an obvious next step to offer export to e.g. React, React Native, SwiftUI…?
Otherwise you spend days, weeks, months crafting your perfect design down to the pixel, and then someone else has to start again from scratch with a totally different approach. Maybe I’m missing something, but that feels incredibly inefficient and regressive.
> Surely it is an obvious next step to offer export to e.g. React, React Native, SwiftUI…?
These UI frameworks do not really operate in a "down to the pixel" way and so getting correspondance between a bitmap design and a representation in the UI framework is far from an "obvious next step" (if it were trivial to add such a feature, then of course the developers of these tools would add it).
Various concerns that aren't captured in the bitmap design - like how your screens transition from one to another, etc - can dramatically affect how the UI is implemented in a target framework. This is the job of UI engineers.
Well, used to be. Now it's vibe code all the way down.
Sure, I understand the going from a raster design image to a working prototype in one of the frameworks is not easily automated.
However, I would’ve thought it would be feasible to create a design tool with this in mind, so the same fundamental design structure could be output either to the internal preview, or (any?) one of the target frameworks.
Wouldn't that be more of a RAD tool, like Lazarus[0]? Or are you suggesting you could do both in the same tool? I'm not doubting it's possible, but those are two very different (and large!) products from a functional standpoint. Combining them is going to be quite the undertaking.
Your tone is disagreement, but it's not clear why?
There is an individual who you trust to do good work, and who works well with you. They're not anonymous. Addressing the topic of this thread, you know (or should know) that it is not AI slop.
That is a significant amount of knowledge and trust in an individual, and the very point I thought the GP was making.
This is one of those articles that is too obsessed with amusing itself with its own pretentiousness to communicate anything interesting - which is ironic given the author seems thinks they prefer communications to entertainment.
The argument boils down to: this is exactly the same as other times. And provides multiple examples.
reply